Bruce Wilson <b-svn@toomuchblue.com> wrote on 11/26/2007 04:23:45 PM:
[...]
> That being said, I think the non-lock-related part of David's
> suggestion has some merit. Noting that a given file had been
> changed on the server is useful information with IMO much less risk
> of confusing the user, even if somewhat out of date.
Just as information that a file was locked the last time you checked
is useful information to some people. Retaining no information is
not value enhancing and isn't helping to protect the users from
themselves.
Making it apparent the status is valid as per the time of the working copy
update and not the time/revision of the repository would remove any
possible confusion.
As a real world example, I have had many users confused why svn
isn't showing this type of information in their working copy, since they
expected it to be a snapshot of the repository at a specific instance of
time.
(Both repository history time and wall clock time.)
None of these users has indicated they were expecting it to be updated in
real-time...
They are all smart enough to realize their working copy is a snapshot in
time.
(Again, both repository history time AND wall clock time.)
Assuming the file isn't locked because the cache says it isn't locked is
no
worse than assuming the file isn't locked because you have no information
about the lock status. In either case you would have to merge your
potentially
incompatible changes and in both cases you should have been smart enough
to
query the server if you wanted the true almost real-time status.
Kevin R.
Received on Tue Nov 27 00:58:53 2007